Jane Austen

[Pergamum]

I am listening intently to this thread (listening with my eyes I guess) and my former disdain for all things Austenesque is slowly thawing.

If there is a good audiobook version I am willing to listen all the way through for a good dose of either sense or sensibility.





It won't raise my estrogen levels, will it?

 

[JennyG]

I am listening intently to this thread (listening with my eyes I guess) and my former disdain for all things Austenesque is slowly thawing.

If there is a good audiobook version I am willing to listen all the way through for a good dose of either sense or sensibility.





It won't raise my estrogen levels, will it?

There you go again. Didn't I see another thread where a lot of guys were getting angsty about losing man-points if they read Austen...?
Don't worry!!
The only points you are in danger of losing are uncultured philistine points

(and just so that we're perfectly clear..... that's a good thing)

 

[Augusta]

I am listening intently to this thread (listening with my eyes I guess) and my former disdain for all things Austenesque is slowly thawing.

If there is a good audiobook version I am willing to listen all the way through for a good dose of either sense or sensibility.





It won't raise my estrogen levels, will it?

Pergy here is a free audio book of Sense and Sensibility. The narrator has an English accent and she does an excellent job narrating. You can probably find all of Austen works there for free. Librivox.org.

And, no, I don't think it will affect your estrogen levels but it might affect your sense and sensibility.

LibriVox Sense and Sensibility (version 03) by Jane Austen

 

[a mere housewife]

Jenny, my library has nine books of hers -- but none available for request through the website (very mysterious); so I will have to go in and ask a librarian about it. I'm eager to read her .

The problem with what happens 'offscreen' is that having no experience of it, we can't register more than mental assent in our responsiveness. I think, unless Austen meant to subtly write the sort of 'true to life' book where the bad people are engaging and bold, and the good people mistaken but too timidly upright to do aught but wind up together, she did not hit the mark with Edmund -- it does seem uncharitable to ascribe failure to her as a novelist in any sense: but it seems more uncharitable to me to think she succeeded here. Austen's main strength as a moralist lies in making the inevitable splendid & I just don't think she pulled it off here.

I think that the real divides in JA's world are along the lines of decency and propriety. Happily, she wrote of a society that reflected generations of Christian values -- selflessness, patience, rectitude and other spiritual virtues are valued: but they are valued in a way that is limited by the external considerations. For instance, it is fine for a gentleman to marry a gentleman's daughter, however impoverished: but to countenance the idea of matrimony between truly unequal social ranks -- as becomes axiomatic in even the correct attitudes in Emma -- would be to upset the ordered universe, and here terminates the horizon of decent unselfishness.

I think this is why the situation with Henry Crawford becomes so confusing; and why ultimately his weaknesses -- even his impatience -- being 'worse form' than the weaknesses of Edmund counts for more than whether or not he is truly bad inside or reformable. His rehabilitation would not be to the purpose in Austen's instructive world of manners. I think she chose to write about a confined world where the morality is -- though deep enough to be significant and worthy of emulation in many respects -- not deep enough to be consistent, unless you accept it onlimited terms.

I hope your daughter escapes whole-hearted from the danger of loving Henry Crawfords too much. I don't actually find that I love him: I just think he is made more wonderful than Edmund and regret that Fanny did not emerge from her trials to be rewarded with wonderfulness. (Actually, the only hero of Austen's I have 'fallen in love with' is Henry Tilney.)

If I do procure anything of Yonge's and have any thoughts that withstand proofreading I will try to send them to you .

 

[Pergamum]

I am listening intently to this thread (listening with my eyes I guess) and my former disdain for all things Austenesque is slowly thawing.

If there is a good audiobook version I am willing to listen all the way through for a good dose of either sense or sensibility.





It won't raise my estrogen levels, will it?

There you go again. Didn't I see another thread where a lot of guys were getting angsty about losing man-points if they read Austen...?
Don't worry!!
The only points you are in danger of losing are uncultured philistine points

(and just so that we're perfectly clear..... that's a good thing)

Okay, my uncultured philistine count is preparing to drop!

 

[steven-nemes]

I recently watched Ang Lee's version of Sense and Sensibility. I guess I liked the technical aspect of the film but gosh the story is so--ugh.

 

[JennyG]

Jenny, my library has nine books of hers -- but none available for request through the website (very mysterious); so I will have to go in and ask a librarian about it. I'm eager to read her .

I really appreciate that....though I'm gradually becoming more and more sure you'll probably hate her!!! Oh well if you did, at least I would finally know it's a pleasure I just have to indulge solitarily, even though as was said about JA, her characters are just MADE to be gossiped about

The problem with what happens 'offscreen' is that having no experience of it, we can't register more than mental assent in our responsiveness.

True, but some of it is there if you look for it- I mean the easy and non-boring engagement between Edmund and Fanny. Think of all those hooks she throws out about Cowper (ye fallen avenues...) and stargazing and so on, - obviously well-trodden topics between them, but what we see at that point is him failing to follow them up because at present he can't see past Miss Crawford

I think, unless Austen meant to subtly write the sort of 'true to life' book where the bad people are engaging and bold, and the good people mistaken but too timidly upright to do aught but wind up together, she did not hit the mark with Edmund --

One of the things she shows is how under surface timidity, Fanny has the moral courage of a lion! (if lions have moral courage)- sufficient to put the whole family back on course after their varied failures in judgment and integrity

it does seem uncharitable to ascribe failure to her as a novelist in any sense: but it seems more uncharitable to me to think she succeeded here. Austen's main strength as a moralist lies in making the inevitable splendid & I just don't think she pulled it off here.

perhaps we aren't called to show charity to novelists where their art is concerned! you may well be right..

I think that the real divides in JA's world are along the lines of decency and propriety. Happily, she wrote of a society that reflected generations of Christian values -- selflessness, patience, rectitude and other spiritual virtues are valued: but they are valued in a way that is limited by the external considerations. For instance, it is fine for a gentleman to marry a gentleman's daughter, however impoverished: but to countenance the idea of matrimony between truly unequal social ranks -- as becomes axiomatic in even the correct attitudes in Emma -- would be to upset the ordered universe, and here terminates the horizon of decent unselfishness.

absolutely, of course that's a very important point. I suppose you just have to decide when reading a novelist of a previous age, whether to suspend disbelief and mentally enter into the moral landscape of the time ....or to read it through the spectacles of modern thinking, in which case you will be judging not the characters within their (fictional) situation, but the whole societal set-up of the time, and maybe the moral intelligence of the author.
I prefer the suspended disbelief method any day -- judge JA'S society when you're judging societies - but judge her characters by the standards of that society, since they don't have the ability to step out side of it to separate the essential from the time-related..
I have a low anachronism-threshold and I could never read a victorian novel thinking "duh - why didn't she just marry the gardener's boy?" (in a modern "historical" novel she'd be quite likely to do exactly that, thereby destroying the illusion instantly) If you take on the expectations and assumptions of the time, you're likely to get more out of it in my view, at least as an imaginative experience.
But if you stand back, and judge the characters from the vantage point of the present day, I think it will tend to make hay of the work's internal coherence. Edmund and Fanny had no such opportunity. (Plus as CS Lewis pointed out, it's really no safer to steer by the assured moral assumptions of our own day, -the ones, as he said, which we are so certain of that we don't even know we hold them, but about which future generations will say "but how COULD they have thought that?!")
I'm labouring this because I very much fear it may be necessary to read Charlotte Yonge on her own terms and without subjecting all her petty proprieties to the microscope as you go...to get the brilliant best out of her!

I think this is why the situation with Henry Crawford becomes so confusing; and why ultimately his weaknesses -- even his impatience -- being 'worse form' than the weaknesses of Edmund counts for more than whether or not he is truly bad inside or reformable. His rehabilitation would not be to the purpose in Austen's instructive world of manners. I think she chose to write about a confined world where the morality is -- though deep enough to be significant and worthy of emulation in many respects -- not deep enough to be consistent, unless you accept it onlimited terms.

I think you're right, but I also think it's worth accepting it on those terms!
for eg, if JA says it was wrong to act, then it was wrong...

I hope your daughter escapes whole-hearted from the danger of loving Henry Crawfords too much. I don't actually find that I love him: I just think he is made more wonderful than Edmund and regret that Fanny did not emerge from her trials to be rewarded with wonderfulness. (Actually, the only hero of Austen's I have 'fallen in love with' is Henry Tilney.)

I think she'll survive I'm fascinated you like the other Henry best! Don't you find him a bit inconsistently drawn? All that deadpan wit over the fabrics at Mrs Allen's expense at the beginning - where does it go? (I like him too)

If I do procure anything of Yonge's and have any thoughts that withstand proofreading I will try to send them to you .

Thanks, and I really hope you like her

 

[JennyG]

By the way, Jessi (if you're still looking at this thread...)
I know you're a big-time Jane Eyre fan, and I wondered if you ever read Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier?
In case you don't know it - it's a rip-off of the book, but quite an accomplished rip-off.
If you have read it, I'd be interested to know what you think of it!

 

[a mere housewife]

Jenny, yes; I agree that we should try to read and judge an author's universe on their own terms; this was my point as well: in order to do so it's necessary to understand what their terms are. Surely clarity is also necessary for transposing what is valuable into 'real life'. If I mistake Jane Austen's lessons in manners for something they do not pretend to -- for encompassing my whole moral nature -- I could learn the wrong things from her (redemption from real depravity and forgiveness for indecency do not characterise her universe any more than truly selfless humbling of the exalted to rescue the lowly: salvation is mostly a correction of outward or inward circumstances -- such as poverty, or socially forgivable errors in thought or feeling -- and is the reward of the fundamentally innocent and good). We approach what the author is saying on his/her own terms, but we measure the value and extent of what is said against God's. Jane Austen's work is very valuable not only for artistic merit, but because courtesy, patience, self restraint, etc., are worth learning. She teaches us to meet pain not just stoically but graciously, and to rise to the forms and ceremonies of being considerate even when our hearts are breaking; and we know that in Christ, virtue does inevitably triumph, and is splendidly rewarded.

I have to disagree about Fanny's boldness as a lion. Certainly considering her weakness she manages at times a significant amount of courage but she would have involved herself in the play had her uncle not returned; and she would have married Henry Crawford if he had persisted, and Edmund not been free. On the terms of Austen's universe, she is saved from moral taint in the knick of time by the same susceptibility to external forces that exposes her to them -- as is Edmund. Which is why the novel leaves itself open to being interpreted as a statement about the drab inevitability of moral steadfastness in the timidly upright. When the book opens she is more of a jelly with a conscience than a 'form': in this regard it makes sense that Edmund has 'formed' her -- they are both more or less ineffectual (accounting for some part of her 'selflessness'). She emerges into a true shape far more in her interactions with Henry Crawford. All of this is very ably true to life of Jane Austen, but not very wonderful in her characters.

Henry Tilney's delight with feminine irrelevance and ridiculousness remains throughout the book, as the flip side of his more serious concern over its tendency: it is of all of a piece with his attraction to and protectiveness of silly little Catherine. He is incredibly well drawn.


Just a note that I will probably leave the discussion alone for the weekend (and probably longer); but it's been very enjoyable; thank you sincerely .

 

[JennyG]

I think I read and replied too fast the last time, I do see what you're saying (and mostly agree)
Yes it's been fun, thank you! but I too have a busy time ahead so I'm equally happy to stop there.

Kudos to dear old Fanny and Edmund. I have a soft spot a mile wide for both of them.
It could be partly because I was set the book for A Level,*and most of my class-mates disdained them. Reverse psychology, like Kathleen with Mr Rochester. Plus I was a shy child and had a fellow-feeling for poor Fanny - how could I help loving the big boy who stuck up for her??
...I just have to add that as JA points out, sure Fanny would have married Henry - but not in a passive line-of-least-resistance way, more because once Edmund was married, her strong principles would have started fighting on the other side!

 

[he beholds]

By the way, Jessi (if you're still looking at this thread...)
I know you're a big-time Jane Eyre fan, and I wondered if you ever read Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier?
In case you don't know it - it's a rip-off of the book, but quite an accomplished rip-off.
If you have read it, I'd be interested to know what you think of it!

Well, I just got the DVD of this (Masterpiece Theatre, I believe) from Netflix, but haven't watched it yet (nor have I read it). My husband and I wanted movies of books that we are on the fence about reading, and at your suggestion, I would have read it, but I have no self-control when the movie is waiting to be played : ) The idea is, though, that if we like it (or I or he), we'll read it afterward. Less than ideal...

Now, the Austen heroes....ah, that's a different thing, the only problem would be in choosing between them. I love them all, even the deeply unfashionable Edmund Bertram.

The problem with the deeply unpopular Edmund is that he spends the entire book talking to Fanny about another woman, in whose character he is unhappily and avoidably deceived. So he is a bad judge of character, and a generally boring conversationalist. I always think it's nicer for a woman to fall in love with someone who has the good sense to talk about -- if not her -- at least to talk sensibly about the weather. I have never regretted the non-reform of a villain so much as I regretted that of Henry Crawford; and this is my main impression on every re-reading of the novel. It's the only detail that I think ever went awry in Jane Austen's so perfectly competent writing -- in this one book she made the bad people more engaging than the good ones. That is an unpleasant taste for a moral novel (the 'most intensely moral of all her novels', some preface to some edition I read said) to leave. (I actually found it the most morally ambiguous of all her novels -- I kept wondering if Henry Crawford would have reformed if Fanny had met him half way, and the 'heads or tails' dilemma about whether he was internally bad or had just had bad influences would have landed face up: and finally decided that this sort of moral ramification probably didn't concern Jane Austen. I think she was concerned to write about a very bounded world of societal, rather than larger questions of truly spiritual, morality. Edmund's little weakness of character re: Miss Crawford and the play is more respectable than Henry Crawford's; thus we must rejoice that Fanny held steadfastly to, and gained, her first love and did not turn aside to save anyone from less acceptable sins. As Ruben said when I asked him what he thought about this, perhaps the real take home lesson of Jane Austen is that society is less gracious than God

I think C. S. Lewis says something about the 'exquisite' families of Charlotte Yonge in his autobiography? On both your recommendations, I will check something out of the library.

Very interesting conversation about Mansfield Park. It makes me really want to read the book, b/c we just watched this movie (NOT BBC, and totally trashy in some parts!) and I was already curious as to what was a modern addition and what came from the book.

 

[a mere housewife]

Jessi, I saw some previews for that version. It looked entirely like the sort of thing that would make Jane Austen turn over in her grave (as with the Keira Knightly version of P&P

I found this over the weekend in Zacharias Ursinus' Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism and couldn't help thinking of this discussion and smiling broadly as it seems to sum up what Laura was saying about the value of Jane Austen:

'The fifth [purpose or reason] is the preservation of society in the human race, which, again, is subordinate to the manifestation of God ; for if men did not exist, God could not have those to whom he might reveal himself. . . .
'The sixth, is a mutual participation in the duties, kindness, and benefits which we owe to each other ; which, again, contributes to the preservation of society ; for it is necessary to the continuance of the human race, that peace and mutual intercourse exist among men.'

(Jenny re: attachment to the imaginary people who comfort us as children, I understand. And re: likeness to Fanny, yes, though in her failings -- I am very like her; and I know this is why I find it more difficult to make excuses for her. I was wondering if the gap between Fanny & Edmund's lack of badness and their lack of really splendid goodness is due to the areas of divergence between good manners and truly spiritual morality, esp. with regard to being pliable -- I recall John Bunyan's assessment of this 'virtue' -- which was perhaps bound to catch Austen out somewhere. I think she does better with pliability and obstinance in Persuasion.)

 

[JennyG]

I stopped looking at this thread for a while and missed some posts.
Jessi, I'll be very interested to know what you think of Rebecca if you do give it a go. I'm not exactly recommending it...I think it's well-written and quite involving, but in a way it's like Jane Eyre with all the classiest elements removed! (leaving the heaving melodrama) The old Laurence Olivier film is quite a classic in its own right of course.
Re the Mansfield Park movie... I haven't actually watched it (my children said, don't! don't! you'll hate it!!! and I suspected they wre right) but I've got a fair idea of some of the outrages it wreaks on Austen. It's rated 15 for a start which tells me everything I need to know, really!
But on the other hand I don't know if a decent film of it even exists. We own a decades-old BBC serialised version, pretty laboured, and with a badly miscast Fanny. We watch it every now and then because the story still comes through, plus we can enjoy the awfulness of the production...
Mansefield Park and Northanger Abbey seem to be the great un-filmables though. There are near-perfect versions of all the others. Except maybe for the last scene of the lovely BBC Persuasion.
As for Wuthering heights and Jane Eyre...directors' graveyards both!!

-----Added 11/14/2009 at 05:17:30 EST-----

...Heidi, your analysis of the issues with Mansfield park is very interesting, and I suspect you're the one really going to the root, and mine a much more superficial reading!
I must think more about it.
(I stand convicted too by your observations on being harder on Fanny because you were like her...)
When I gave up English as an academic subject all those years ago I adored being able to read without the obligation to analyse. Now I'm thinking it may be time to switch the function back on, only relating it much more to the real issues of ethics and belief (which wasn't at all what an Eng. Lit. department would have been interested in of course) Not that I do read without applying a Biblical filter, but I could obviously do so more systematically and rigorously

 

[greenbaggins]

This has been a very interesting thread. I'm encouraged to see a few men get interested in Austen from it. Some of the studliest men I know are avid fans of Jane Austen. There have been few writers in history who have been such excellent judges of character as Austen. She is not my absolutely favorite writer (that honor goes to Dickens). But any library that does not have her works is woefully inadequate (contra Twain). I hunt deer and pheasant, and read Jane Austen, and don't feel the slightest bit schizophrenic about that. Of course, one needn't if one remembers that Austen's men also hunt!

 

[Augusta]

Except maybe for the last scene of the lovely BBC Persuasion.
As for Wuthering heights and Jane Eyre...directors' graveyards both!!

I totally agree about the BBC Persuasion! I love that movie except for that silly circus part. I can't stand that part except for their finding each other.

I like the 1983 BBC Jane Eyre with Timothy Dalton. They use some of the book dialogue word for word. I don't particulary like Zelah Clarke as Jane Eyre though because I really liked Charlotte Gainsborrough who was Jane in the American version. She really struck me as the perfect Jane.

 

[Andrew Short]

Austin and others

I found the BBC miniseries of Pride and Prejudice boring should I try an audiobook? I enjoyed the bbc miniseries of Jane Eyre. Same for the 1990's color David Copperfield. What of all these old English novels, which are the most biblical base? Are the Barchester Chronicles good in audiobook?

 

[Idelette]

Except maybe for the last scene of the lovely BBC Persuasion.
As for Wuthering heights and Jane Eyre...directors' graveyards both!!

I totally agree about the BBC Persuasion! I love that movie except for that silly circus part. I can't stand that part except for their finding each other.

Was the BBC version the 2008 version with Sally Hawkins, Alice Krige, Rupert Penry-Jones, and Anthony Head??

I really love the story of Persuasion...in fact, I think it was Jane Austen's best work, In my humble opinion! But, I was a bit dissappointed in the 2008 movie adaption of the story. It was very hard to follow and I didn't really think the relationship between the two main characters was developed very well. I'm wondering if anyone else felt that way about the 2008 version??

 

[JennyG]

Except maybe for the last scene of the lovely BBC Persuasion.
As for Wuthering heights and Jane Eyre...directors' graveyards both!!

I totally agree about the BBC Persuasion! I love that movie except for that silly circus part. I can't stand that part except for their finding each other.

Was the BBC version the 2008 version with Sally Hawkins, Alice Krige, Rupert Penry-Jones, and Anthony Head??

I really love the story of Persuasion...in fact, I think it was Jane Austen's best work, In my humble opinion!

I think so too, on the whole

But, I was a bit dissappointed in the 2008 movie adaption of the story. It was very hard to follow and I didn't really think the relationship between the two main characters was developed very well. I'm wondering if anyone else felt that way about the 2008 version??

I don't think I ever saw that one. The BBC Persuasion I was thinking of might have been made as long ago as the nineties, and it's so good it prevented my feeling the need of ever watching another! It has Amanda Root as Anne, and she's just about perfect in the role. The gradual recovery of her "bloom" is beautifully done, and by the end is also finding expression in such surpassingly gorgeous outfits! (gentlemen please ignore that frivolous observation)
And at the end a circus goes by, to symbolise the riot of joy in their hearts. Actually I've got used to the circus, though it annoyed me very much at first, and I think now I could swallow that, but the scene immediately following is the one that finishes me. It's very weird indeed. i take comfort in the fact that even JA herself had trouble wrapping up that novel, and in fact left an alternate ending extant (but minus the circus)

 

[Idelette]

I don't think I ever saw that one. The BBC Persuasion I was thinking of might have been made as long ago as the nineties, and it's so good it prevented my feeling the need of ever watching another! It has Amanda Root as Anne, and she's just about perfect in the role. The gradual recovery of her "bloom" is beautifully done, and by the end is also finding expression in such surpassingly gorgeous outfits! (gentlemen please ignore that frivolous observation)
And at the end a circus goes by, to symbolise the riot of joy in their hearts. Actually I've got used to the circus, though it annoyed me very much at first, and I think now I could swallow that, but the scene immediately following is the one that finishes me. It's very weird indeed. i take comfort in the fact that even JA herself had trouble wrapping up that novel, and in fact left an alternate ending extant (but minus the circus)

That's interesting, I'll have to look for the BBC version then! I just love that story and would love to see a good screen adaptation of it!

 

[JennyG]

I don't think I ever saw that one. The BBC Persuasion I was thinking of might have been made as long ago as the nineties, and it's so good it prevented my feeling the need of ever watching another! It has Amanda Root as Anne, and she's just about perfect in the role. The gradual recovery of her "bloom" is beautifully done, and by the end is also finding expression in such surpassingly gorgeous outfits! (gentlemen please ignore that frivolous observation)
And at the end a circus goes by, to symbolise the riot of joy in their hearts. Actually I've got used to the circus, though it annoyed me very much at first, and I think now I could swallow that, but the scene immediately following is the one that finishes me. It's very weird indeed. i take comfort in the fact that even JA herself had trouble wrapping up that novel, and in fact left an alternate ending extant (but minus the circus)

That's interesting, I'll have to look for the BBC version then! I just love that story and would love to see a good screen adaptation of it!

I think you might like that one -not that it's without faults...
Ciaran Hynd is Capt. Wentworth (I may have spelt him wrong) There's a beautiful background score with lots of Romantic piano music which gives it the same kind of heart-tugging elegiac feel as S & S.
I sometimes wonder how it came about that all those good Austen versions were made, at that point in history, and with the film/TV industry in general being what it is. The best of them (I'm thinking the BBC P&P, Emma Thompson's S&S, Gwyneth Paltrow's Emma and this Persuasion) are mostly faithful to the books and most important of all, faithfully reproduce her moral landscape. I don't feel it could have been predicted. The Northanger Abbey and Mansfield Park horrors were more what could have been expected!
Andrew:

I found the BBC miniseries of Pride and Prejudice boring should I try an audiobook? I enjoyed the bbc miniseries of Jane Eyre. Same for the 1990's color David Copperfield. What of all these old English novels, which are the most biblical base? Are the Barchester Chronicles good in audiobook?

You could always try an audio book, I honestly don't know whether it would be more enjoyable or not though.
I always found Trollope harder going and less rewarding (his moral outlook more worldly too) than Austen, but it's probably a personal thing!
The BBC screened some of his too, ages ago, and they were hugely popular in this country - with a superb cast that really brought out the humour in them. Reading them might be more dry, at least I found it so.
For a Christian wanting God-honouring (and also entertaining) reading, I think Austen will always be one of the tops!

 

[Augusta]

Yes, it's the Amanda Root one that I was talking about. (tx Jenny ) I find myself watching that one over and over. I especially love the part where she visits here sister and her inlaws and ends up being confided in by everyone all talking about each other to her. I am that person in my family so that part always makes me laugh. My family members complain to me about each other all the time and I am the go between. I think it's a middle child phenom.

 

[he beholds]

I just watched the BBC Amanda Root version of Persuasion last week. I liked it a lot, but never read the book, so I am not the best judge. I hate to admit it, though, but in some scenes she was just so average, or even boyish (yet old)-looking, that I had a hard time fully embracing her. I know this is just my sinful Hollywood-twisted mind and I did not let that keep me from rooting for her. I am sure that the point of the book was that she was unattractive--and how old was she supposed to be?

The latest Masterpiece Theatre's Jane Eyre was very, very good. They did a good job in casting Jane, who was also not a beauty, but the actress was young and pensive and sweet. And I'm sure it helped that I knew for sure, since I had read the book, that Jane was no beauty.

Rebecca--that one made me nervous!! I wanted to wikipedia it so many times to find out how it would end and whether Rebecca was hidden alive in the west wing (like Bertha in Jane Eyre, since I was told they were similar). Especially since the movie was three hours long and took me two days to watch it during the kiddos' naps.
I did really, really like it in the end. It was just a very tense movie. I think I would also read the book someday.
Any other BBC movie recommendations? I love Masterpiece Theatre.

 

[JennyG]

I just watched the BBC Amanda Root version of Persuasion last week. I liked it a lot, but never read the book, so I am not the best judge. I hate to admit it, though, but in some scenes she was just so average, or even boyish (yet old)-looking, that I had a hard time fully embracing her.

the very first time I saw it, that's exactly what I said too -"no way, she's far too average and old-looking to be Anne Eliot!" (of course you do have to realise that the character actually IS ancient. She's 27 - which is obviously well over the hill...) but then I realised that's the beauty and subtlety of it. Anne is prematurely aged at the beginning of the novel by all her grief over her lost love, - but gradually she wins back her bloom, and you do actually see it happen before your very eyes in this film! At least I think so. She has very expressive eyes always, but by the end she really looks very pretty (especially in those lovely becoming dove- blue and dove-pink outfits she has at Bath)

... I did not let that keep me from rooting for her.

haha - pun intended?

Rebecca--that one made me nervous!! I wanted to wikipedia it so many times to find out how it would end and whether Rebecca was hidden alive in the west wing (like Bertha in Jane Eyre, since I was told they were similar). Especially since the movie was three hours long and took me two days to watch it during the kiddos' naps.
I did really, really like it in the end. It was just a very tense movie. I think I would also read the book someday.

yay, glad you enjoyed it! It sure is a tense movie and very close to the book. Except they toned it down a bit I think. Did he kill her or didn't he? I know in the book he did, but I had a feeling the movie fixed it somehow so he didn't, quite

Any other BBC movie recommendations? I love Masterpiece Theatre.

The Forsyte Saga is pretty fun, especially the old BBC 60's serial version if you can get it.
It's very long too, it would really last you...

 

[Laura]

I just watched the BBC Amanda Root version of Persuasion last week. I liked it a lot, but never read the book, so I am not the best judge. I hate to admit it, though, but in some scenes she was just so average, or even boyish (yet old)-looking, that I had a hard time fully embracing her. I know this is just my sinful Hollywood-twisted mind and I did not let that keep me from rooting for her. I am sure that the point of the book was that she was unattractive--and how old was she supposed to be?

One of the biggest reasons this is my favorite of Austen's novels is because it starts out so tragic, and gradually your hopes are raised as you see the hero and heroine meeting over and over again, and just maybe it will work out... and as Jenny said, her faded looks in the beginning are emphasized in the book, and let's be honest, that's an important consideration when you're in your twenties and hoping not to be left an old maid. You certainly don't want to look like one while you're still eligible. So it's another happy part of the resolution.

 

[he beholds]

SPOILERS, perhaps

I just watched the BBC Amanda Root version of Persuasion last week. I liked it a lot, but never read the book, so I am not the best judge. I hate to admit it, though, but in some scenes she was just so average, or even boyish (yet old)-looking, that I had a hard time fully embracing her.

the very first time I saw it, that's exactly what I said too -"no way, she's far too average and old-looking to be Anne Eliot!" (of course you do have to realise that the character actually IS ancient. She's 27 - which is obviously well over the hill...) but then I realised that's the beauty and subtlety of it. Anne is prematurely aged at the beginning of the novel by all her grief over her lost love, - but gradually she wins back her bloom, and you do actually see it happen before your very eyes in this film! At least I think so. She has very expressive eyes always, but by the end she really looks very pretty (especially in those lovely becoming dove- blue and dove-pink outfits she has at Bath)

... I did not let that keep me from rooting for her.

haha - pun intended?

Rebecca--that one made me nervous!! I wanted to wikipedia it so many times to find out how it would end and whether Rebecca was hidden alive in the west wing (like Bertha in Jane Eyre, since I was told they were similar). Especially since the movie was three hours long and took me two days to watch it during the kiddos' naps.
I did really, really like it in the end. It was just a very tense movie. I think I would also read the book someday.

yay, glad you enjoyed it! It sure is a tense movie and very close to the book. Except they toned it down a bit I think. Did he kill her or didn't he? I know in the book he did, but I had a feeling the movie fixed it somehow so he didn't, quite

Any other BBC movie recommendations? I love Masterpiece Theatre.

The Forsyte Saga is pretty fun, especially the old BBC 60's serial version if you can get it.
It's very long too, it would really last you...

Well, not to keep on being petty, but she definitely looked older than 27! I am 28 and feel like she looks older than me and my friends. But I do think that adds to the story, since then 27 was older than now, if that makes sense. I do think the movie did a poor job of showing her grief in the beginning. I was pretty sure that her lost love was--I forget his name--but it took me a few run-ins to see that for sure it was he. I don't know if maybe I missed the first minutes of the movie or they wanted to let you figure it out slowly. I wondered if in the book you know right away who it was that she loved and lost.

Pun WAS intended...glad you got it!

Re: Rebecca. He did kill her, but she had cancer (unbeknownst to him) and only had a few months to live--was that true to the book? He didn't kill her knowing that she was going to die, but it maybe made him appear slightly less the murderer.

I will check netflix for Forsyte Saga--thanks!

One of the biggest reasons this is my favorite of Austen's novels is because it starts out so tragic, and gradually your hopes are raised as you see the hero and heroine meeting over and over again, and just maybe it will work out... and as Jenny said, her faded looks in the beginning are emphasized in the book, and let's be honest, that's an important consideration when you're in your twenties and hoping not to be left an old maid. You certainly don't want to look like one while you're still eligible. So it's another happy part of the resolution.

Very good point! And I knew (or assumed) why she was plain, but I still would have imagined her slightly different had I been reading.

 

[Jennie]

Jane Eyre has been my favorite book since I first read it back in 1962. However, I didn't like Mr. Rochester and I had to become an adult before I realized why: he was a weak, immoral man who lacked the goodness and solid character of Jane. Why on earth did she love that guy? He wasn't worthy of her.

Jane Austen absolutely bores me to tears. However, I love Merchant-Ivory films which I think have an Austenish touch to them.

If anyone is looking for an absolutely hilarious book guaranteed to make you laugh, try Penrod by Booth Tarkington. It's the story of an 11-year-old boy, but it can only be appreciated by an adult.

 

[a mere housewife]

I just watched the BBC Amanda Root version of Persuasion last week. I liked it a lot, but never read the book, so I am not the best judge. I hate to admit it, though, but in some scenes she was just so average, or even boyish (yet old)-looking, that I had a hard time fully embracing her. I know this is just my sinful Hollywood-twisted mind and I did not let that keep me from rooting for her. I am sure that the point of the book was that she was unattractive--and how old was she supposed to be?

One of the biggest reasons this is my favorite of Austen's novels is because it starts out so tragic, and gradually your hopes are raised as you see the hero and heroine meeting over and over again, and just maybe it will work out... and as Jenny said, her faded looks in the beginning are emphasized in the book, and let's be honest, that's an important consideration when you're in your twenties and hoping not to be left an old maid. You certainly don't want to look like one while you're still eligible. So it's another happy part of the resolution.

Laura, hope is definitely a sort of low throbbing note around which the whole story builds and falls and builds again -- until it is marvelously swept up as the theme: I think this book reads more like a piece of music than anything else Austen wrote, especially in several scenes with several layers of atmosphere (Anne's thoughts, people's motions, conversations, rain, the intensity of emotion, etc).

It is also my favorite Austen work because Anne Eliot is my favorite literary heroine: she is patient, and self forgetful, and hopeful, and unwavering even through fluctuations of hope and natural timidity, in her own purpose of clinging to what is good and rejecting the false, and is I think, utterly beautiful.

 

[he beholds]

Laura, hope is definitely a sort of low throbbing note around which the whole story builds and falls and builds again -- until it is marvelously swept up as the theme: I think this book reads more like a piece of music than anything else Austen wrote, especially in several scenes with several layers of atmosphere (Anne's thoughts, people's motions, conversations, rain, the intensity of emotion, etc).

It is also my favorite Austen work because Anne Eliot is my favorite literary heroine: she is patient, and self forgetful, and hopeful, and unwavering even through fluctuations of hope and natural timidity, in her own purpose of clinging to what is good and rejecting the false, and is I think, utterly beautiful.

That description makes me definitely want to read it. I think I may even have it somewhere!

 

[JennyG]

Jane Eyre has been my favorite book since I first read it back in 1962. However, I didn't like Mr. Rochester and I had to become an adult before I realized why: he was a weak, immoral man who lacked the goodness and solid character of Jane. Why on earth did she love that guy? He wasn't worthy of her.

I think the Brontes just couldn't resist a dark brooding hero with a Past - all except Anne, who had really taken on board the lesson of her brother's life and death. If she hadn't, I suppose Arthur Huntingdon in The Tenant of Wildfell Hall would be another Rochester/Heathcliff and Helen would have loved him to the bitter end! As it was, the third Bronte rose triumphantly above the family weakness, and her heroine saw through the louse.
I think there may be a BBC version of The Tenant too, but I have no idea what it's like. The book is a good read

 

[Knight]

I didn't like Emma, Sense and Sensibility, or Mansfield Park, and I've not yet read Persuasion or Northanger Abbey.

Pride and Prejudice, however, is one of my favorite books, and A&E's movie rendition of P&P blows away the BBC and American ones. The first half of the book is particularly excellent. I'm a little prejudiced against liking the second half, probably because my introduction to P&P came in 12th grade Humanities: the combination of what seemed at the time to be an emasculation of Mr. Darcy with many weeping girls made the second half... barely tolerable